ILNews

Opinions June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinions were issued Friday after IL deadline.

Keion Gaddie v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-789.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding that I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3), the statute defining the offense of resisting law enforcement by fleeing after being ordered to stop, must be construed to require that a law enforcement officer’s order to stop be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On that basis, there was insufficient evidence against Gaddie to support the conviction.

Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, holding the evidence and reasonable inferences established Murdock knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer’s order to stop that was based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Dexter Berry v. State of Indiana
49S04-1406-CR-416
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions to accept or reject the plea agreement as written. Rules that the court lacked the authority under terms of the plea agreement to impose on the defendant one year of work release as a condition of probation following his 10-year sentence. The trial court was allowed to order probation after the defendant served his sentence but it could not impose punitive conditions like restrictive placement.

Tin Thang v. State of Indiana
49S04-1402-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Finds based on the evidence the trial court could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been intoxicated in a public place while endangering the life of himself or others. Justices David and Rucker dissent.
   
June 30
Indiana Court of Appeals

Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wife
60A01-1312-PL-518
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in judgment in favor of defendants, holding that Dennis Samples had not proven the court erred in finding the expansion of a dam on neighboring property encroached on his land or was a nuisance.

Anissa L. Tyler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1309-PC-428
Post conviction. Reverses denial of post-conviction relief; vacates convictions of murder and Class A felony aiding, inducing or causing robbery; and remands for retrial, finding the court erred in determining that Tyler received effective assistance of counsel.

Doaa I. Ebrahim v. Essam Otefi (NFP)
76A03-1309-DR-368
Domestic. Affirms denial of Ebrahim’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s dissolution of marriage decree.

Darcel Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms placement split between Department of Correction and work release on an eight-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Cheryl Rodriguez v. Sourthern Dunes Golf, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1307-PL-639
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Southern Dunes.

Bernard A. Burrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1311-CR-431
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Katherine Fraze v. Floyd County Health Department, and City of New Albany and Animal Control (NFP)
22A04-1402-CC-62
Collection. Affirms trial court denial of motion to correct error in favor of the city limiting the number of dogs Fraze could keep on her property.
 
Anthony Ray Willoughby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-PC-375
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
In re: The Visitation of W.G.R. (Minor Child) M.W.R., Father v. K.G. and D.G., Maternal Grandparents (NFP)
78A01-1312-MI-540
Miscellaneous. Remands order for grandparent visitation for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
Chad Thomas Gates v. Shannon Leigh Gates (NFP)
83A05-1401-DR-26
Domestic. Affirms trial court denial of father’s petition to modify custody.
 
Ralph Dennis Gabriel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms 14-year sentence for conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Robert Birk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1310-CR-897
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
 
James Pello v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1312-PC-488
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Walter L. Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1311-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence of Class C felony reckless homicide and Class B felony possession of cocaine.
 
Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1311-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 
Stephan Gallagher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1301-PC-12
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.
 
Brandon Scroggin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1306-CR-312
Criminal. Dismisses as untimely Scroggin’s appeal of convictions of Class C felony receiving stolen auto parts, Class D felony counts of arson and intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1403-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Monday. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opnions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT